I've said before that the most plausible explanation to me for what happens after death is the end of "I," since we as "I's," necessarily cannot comprehend a state of "not-I." We can know it exists, we can experience its effects from others, and we can severely impair it with psychedelic poisons, but to decohere into a state of "!i" is, to borrow from GEB, the song that breaks the record player.
Buddhists would likely disagree with that, since in Buddhism (though this is a significant oversimplification) enlightenment comes with the unrooting of all attachments and the dissolution of "self".
If I've read the OP correctly, it would appear that information theorists would say that since the definition of individual is the effect of propagating coherent information forward in time, the "end" of the individual entity would be when it ceases to cohere information forward in time. Given everything "dies," and in this proposition in the blog post individual entities (living units or not) cease to propagate coherent information forward, the implication to me is the entity that is, "I," will also de-cohere.
By defining an individual unit of something as information, they've taken something we only had metaphors and analogies for and concretized it as a category of things that behave like information. I've applied it to something else we only have metaphors and analogies for, and am sounding out whether it provides any additional insight.
Comments like that are a bellwether of the place they’re posted in. People will hedge their comments whenever they fear there is a sufficient concentration of “well, actually”s in the audience.
I think it's oversimplified because there would need to be a long explanation on what is meant by "self", which the commentor very wisely put in scare quotes.
To the parent: actually I think this "death of decoherence" pretty closely matches the Buddhist doctrine of interdependent arising, so not sure about the disagreement there.
Can you expand on the concept of what "not-I" is? I am very interested, and maybe it is my coffee just kicking in - but my brain can't comprehend solid examples of it.
Buddhists view everything as a sum of parts - a car is not a car, it's a collection of wheels, engine parts, transmission parts, etc. In Buddhism, you are not "you" - you are just some organs working together. Likewise, when you sit quietly during mindfulness meditation you learn to identify sensations of pain and discomfort as things that occur outside of you, you just perceive them. In other words, there is no you, there is a sum of parts that you have traditionally perceived as you. If you decouple yourself from these sensations, you can no longer be hurt by them.
Keep in mind that Buddhism is deeply rooted in a time when the only way to avoid suffering was to ignore all desire, because it wasn't going to be fulfilled anyway. So, if you want a primer course on Buddhism, read the "4 Noble Ways" and "The Eightfold Path" (about a 30 second read for both) - while these sounds esoteric, they basically summarize Buddhism in a very clear, concise, and logical way; which is that Buddhism is nothing by asceticism and a way to let go of wordly desires and ignore the outside world, to ease suffering.
Everything else is fluff by pseudo-intellectuals who will flood below this post.
As a side note "Altered Traits" was a useless, garbage, author-self-promotion book with no actual info, thanks for nothing HN.
I can also recommend "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. It is from a Theravada perspective, but I think it is a good start to get to know the core of Buddhism based on the Pali cannon.
Can you break that down? I am eager to learn about Buddhism, because to me, it has some "practical" aspects, but so far every book I have read has been a 100 pages of fluff and a salient point or two.
What makes this book good?
Just to be clear, I am genuinely interested, but I want to know more as to why you are recommending it.
Since this is an introductory text, it covers things you probably already know about - four noble truths, eight fold path etc.
However, there are some practical advice which I found to be nicely explained,
- Book has a chapter on meditation and I think it does get to the point without fluff, for example. It talks about Samatha (such as focus on breath) and Vipassana meditation.
- Talks about some important sutras such as Kalama sutra which is all about how to live your life as a Buddhist as a layman (as opposed to a monk).
Cool, thanks dewaka, will look into it, though there is a good chance I am familiar with most of it; it would still be nice to have a good introductory test - I don't know of a single Buddhist book I feel comfortable recommending to others, maybe this will be it.
Define "individuality" and "consciousness" for the sake of trying to contrast them. Both seem like very vague open-ended words. Oh wait, they are, because we still can't define consciousness, so there can be no meaningful answer to your question.
no - the question was around a self-aware entity (an "I") becoming aware of its future non-existence. A conscious being without self-awareness would not be capable of considering its self no longer existing.
>we as "I's," necessarily cannot comprehend a state of "not-I."
Can't we?
Just think of nothing. Before you were born. Dreamless sleep. The gap of nothing between standing and feeling funny and waking up later on the ground that one time you passed out. That kind of thing.
I've said before that the most plausible explanation to me for what happens after death is the end of "I," since we as "I's," necessarily cannot comprehend a state of "not-I." We can know it exists, we can experience its effects from others, and we can severely impair it with psychedelic poisons, but to decohere into a state of "!i" is, to borrow from GEB, the song that breaks the record player.
Great post. Alex Danco is consistently good.